Is Christianity moral? Most Americans don’t really know.
I’ve been reading Soren Kierkegaard’s famous “Fear and Trembling,” which is the theologian’s exploration of the story of Abraham and Isaac.
If you’re rusty on your Bible,this is the tale of God’s testing of Abraham, where He demands that the man kill his son and burn his young body on an altar.
Here’s how Kierkegaard describes the tale:
The ethical expression for what Abraham did is, that he would murder Isaac; the religious expression is, that he would sacrifice Isaac.
But precisely in this contradiction consists the dread which can well make a man sleepless, and yet Abraham is not what he is without this dread.
Kierkegaard and other theologians have wrestled with the Abraham-Isaac story in part because by any modern sensibility it’s creepy and loathsome.
Not only does Abraham scheme to murder his son, but he lies about it. When Isaac asks his father, “Where [is] the lamb for the burnt offering?” Abraham fudges:
“God will provide Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.”
Dreadful, indeed. Rather than tell his son or his servants the truth, Abraham makes up a story and takes the boy off alone to a mountaintop.
When they arrived at the place where God had told him to go, Abraham built an altar and arranged the wood on it.
Then he tied his son, Isaac, and laid him on the altar on top of the wood. And Abraham picked up the knife to kill his son as a sacrifice.
It’s an icky moment, one that even many fundamentalist Christians describe as “strange” and “bizarre.”
The story — and Kierkegaard’s exploration of it — are relevant today because increasingly many of the the tenets, teachings and practices of Christianity seem out of step with what many Americans view as basic morality.
There’s plenty of wisdom and goodness in the Bible.
But its texts also patently embrace war, slavery, murder, the subjection of women, sexual violence, and the persecution of gays and lesbians.
Throughout the Bible, obedience is a far more important virtue than kindness or wisdom or love.
It goes without saying that those aren’t just fusty teachings in an old book.
They still pervade our civic and political culture, influencing debates over everything from abortion to same-sex marriage.
Indeed, in modern times, many churches remain preoccupied with issues of sexuality — condemning gays, discouraging sexual education and family planning, even arguing against the equality of women.
Meanwhile, at least in the public sphere, Christian activists spend far less time on issues that many would consider more morally pressing, from climate change and tolerance to poverty and economic inequality.
This tension between Christian morality and the modern world is complicated further by the fact that many powerful church leaders and hierarchies have become entangled with allegations of sexual and financial improprieties.
Bishop Eddie Long, a Georgia preacher who crusades against equality for gays and lesbians, is now accused of using his wealth and influence to seduce a series of young men.
For many Americans, the antidote to this friction between our modern values and the values of Christianity is simple ignorance.
We learn a few stray Bible verses, we go to church on major holidays, but we don’t read the Bible closely, or ask questions about what it means.
A Pew study released last week found that agnostics and atheists were actually far more knowledgeable about world religions than active Christians.
Even when questioned about the Bible and their own faith, most Christians knew remarkably little about the core teachings of their religion.
(Forty percent of Christians weren’t even sure who Abraham is, let alone what his story signifies.)
Another challenging moral principle of modern Protestantism is the idea that faith In Jesus Christ is the key to salvation.
According to many theologians, faith is far more important than good works or human goodness.
That’s a concept that many Americans would struggle with. But according to Pew, only 16% of American Christians even know about it.
Obviously, Christianity contributes profoundly to our culture, providing one of our most important moral compasses.
But as society changes and evolves, it’s important to keep examining that compass, reevaluating how Christianity works and how its teachings and institutions fit with our evolving sense of right and wrong.
It’s a problem when people confuse mythology with morality.
I am a religious liberal. I understand why some people have no belief in a higher power, why some have what I consider to be reasonable amounts of faith and why some are what I consider idiots in the religion area. It is my opinion, and only an opinion, that different people take away different things from the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, Torah, etc. I think often, especially with the Old Testament, people get wrapped up in the specifics, like Abraham’s test, and lose sight of the larger picture.
Asking if Christianity is moral is like asking if Islam is moral. Is it morally right to mutilate your daughters privates? Is it right to stone people to death for perceived violations? To them, yes. To me, no. How do you morally and ethically apply your values to another persons outlook? Is it even morally and ethically right to do that? We all judge others constantly, is that “right”? Many here would judge me to be a hate filled homophobe based on my feelings about homosexuallity. The idea makes my skin crawl and I find it to be a revolting perversion. Now you’re judging me…is that right? I don’t “hate” homosexuals, I don’t want to harm them or outlaw them or anything else. I just want people to stop telling me I HAVE to accept their preference as “normal”. Judge me again….is it right for you to do that? Are changing societal “norms” a good base to judge people by? Are we all arrogant enough that we can overlook our own faults and prejudice and make a rational judgment based on rational values? Read the writings of the ancient philosophers, these aren’t new questions.
In the end, to me, things to take from the Bible include those simply rules for a society to live by- Don’t murder, do what Mom and Dad say, don’t steal, don’t get greedy, don’t mess with another persons spousal unit, etc. I tend to think most people would benefit from a little healthy fear of eternal damnation. Maybe it’s not fire and brimstone, but does being decent and having a little faith in a higher power and purpose to all this garbage we go through hurt anyone?
Abraham was not a Christian. For that matter neither was Yeshua bar Yosuf (AKA Jesus). Christianity as we know it is a creation of Paul and his followers. It isn’t even one religion. It is a hodge podge of religions that share a common mythological basis.
The New Testament has one message – love. Love God and love your neighbor. You would never know that by listening to many Christian fundamentalists. The message these days is that loving your neighbor is socialism and that is evil. You need to walk out of your church if your pastor starts preaching “socialism”.
It seems many conservatives, but not most Protestants, buy into the “salvation by faith and not by good works” moral principle. Lucky for those believers, if you look hard enough, even in the New Testament, you can find some sentence that can be interpreted to excuse your moral lapses. It doesn’t seem logical that the non-believer, who practices the golden rule, is destined for hell.
As for atheists being more knowledgable about the Bible, I think it’s because many of us are fascinated with religion and with the hypocrisy of many of those who believe.
” ……but does being decent and having a little faith in a higher power and purpose to all this garbage we go through hurt anyone?”
Does allowing two people who love each other and want equal rights hurt anyone?
I never said it did. You’re judging me already. Is that “right” for you to do? And I’m judging you for judging me. Same question. And no, allowing it doens’t hurt me, but it does “hurt me” when people try to force me to accept their values just as my trying to force you to accept my values would “hurt” you. Call it a civil union and I’m not harmed. Call it marriage and it makes my traditional relationship/contract with my wife become something other than it was IN MY VIEW. Do you see how that works? A NAMBLA member could use the same argument, only the age changes things. My values and beliefs tell me it’s wrong, I judge them, at this point most of society agrees with me. That NAMBLA can exist shows that changing societal norms aren’t always a good standard to judge values, morals and ethics on.
Does that makes sense?
And I never judged you Bret, I asked a simple question. And, I don’t see where anyone is asking you to accept any “value”. A group of people are asking to be given equal rights, that’s all. How about some specifics on how gays getting married is going to change your relationship with your wife? No, I don’t see how that works.
Also, what to heck does NAMBLA have to do with two consenting adults getting married? That doesn’t make sense.
To lead with the story about Abraham and Isaac is interesting because to begin to understand the story requires understanding the time and how it fits into the timeline of the Jewish people.
The story really marks the start of the Jewish religion. Back in those days, human sacrifice was quite common. One could argue it still is, though less bloody. Our very own justice system is often more concerned with following legalities than the truth. If a few innocent people are executed, at least they had a fair trail. In business (free enterprise), we often blame the poor for being too lazy or stupid to become rich. I digress.
It was Abram’s faith in God that opened him up to realizing human sacrifice was not something God wanted. It was when he followed God’s command to switch the sacrifice from Issac to a lamb and doves that Abram became Abraham and the the Jewish religion began.
Gosh! Here we have a clear example of human evolution in action.
I don’t find it surprising that most people fail a test about their religion. Most people fail tests about the history of the US and its evolution. If we took away the citizenship of all born Americans, how many would pass the test to become a citizen? Scary thought!
Yes, Virginia, human beings do evolve and I thank God that most of
our evolving is taking place in our brains.
Of course you did Elba. You judged my statement from the start, you can’t help but do it. And you apply your values, ethics and moral compass to my opinion. You see nothing wrong with the idea, I see the idea as a threat to the sanctity and very meaning of marriage in general. I see it as opening the door to plural marriage, to obscuring the boundaries, if 2 men or women can get married why can’t I marry my sister or mother or daughter? What’s the difference? None. You’ve changed the meaning from one man and one woman and that’s the camels nose under the tent. NAMBLA can use the same idea- it’s 2 consenting people in a loving relationship, why should one parties age bar them from enjoying their lives together? And why not have laws protecting them, they shouldn’t be discriminated against, should they?
Of course you don’t see it. You are as blind in some respects as I am in others. That’s human nature and what this discussion is based on. My blindness/ethics/values/morals differ from yours and from Knucks, Pete’s and Jims. More in some places, less in others. Christianity, Islam, Shinto, Morman, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, whatever, they all have values and ethics and moral codes that differ to an extent. Does that make them good or bad? And who are we to judge? Should we judge? We all do, does that make us sinners or saints?
Goodness me. I didn’t expect to start my day admiring a Bret4207 post, but here I am. I don’t see or feel or think like you do, 4207, but I do appreciate your willingness/ability to lay out your position.
Of course I didn’t actually start the day with this blog site; I began with another one where the ‘dialogue’ consists of name-calling, flame-throwing silliness. Thanks everyone for some good conversation.
Brian’s discussion of the binding of Isaac, as the Jewish tradition calls it, raises so many issues that simply to enumerate them doesn’t work in a forum like this.
Still, it explains what I just heard.
It seems that Abraham planned to hike the length of the Northville-Placid Trial with Isaac beginning last week at Upper Benson. He made a reservation at Trailhead Lodge, the Washburn’s fine B&B, mailed re-supply parcels to Piseco and Long Lake, and was looking forward to father-son bonding.
Isaac didn’t want to go.
What I am struck by is how much various religions and ethical systems have in common at their roots.
I’m glad you can see into my mind so clearly Bret, even at the subconscious level. You are definitely the man.
And, I don’t need to hear the conservative lecture about how men and frogs are going to be allowed to marry and women will settle down with camels.
There are genetic reasons that people don’t marry close female relatives – thus the laws against it. There are reasons that, in most states, you can’t marry under certain age. There are laws against child abuse to protect our children.
I understand the conservative state of victimhood.
But how about this – How about some specifics on how gays getting married is going to change your relationship with your wife (the original question)?
How will allowing gays to marry discriminate against you and your wedded bliss? I know I’m an immoral, flamming liberal, socialist, elitist. But please educate me on this issue.
Remember like all religious teaching this is a story. I always viewed the Abraham and Issac “story” as one that is supposed to be putting forth the ultimate test of Abraham’s faith. God is asking him to do this immoral and horrible act in an effort to see if he truly has faith, god of course knowing all along that he is never going to make him go through with it. Will he cast aside his morality and everything that he feels because God is asking him to do it and he is bound by his faith and he has no choice in the matter? Is his faith even strong enough that he “knows” that god is not going to make him go through with it in the end? It is an interesting story, with a neat ending.
Just a few more comments on what we Christians call the Old Testament.
It can be difficult, and I don’t think it is all that important, when one tries to separate fact from fiction in Bible stories. Many appear to have started their lives as stories told around the fire before being written. We evolved from an oral tradition before learning how to read and write.
What I’ve always found interesting in the Jewish stories is how they don’t sugar coat their heroes. All have their faults. They are wonderfully and terribly human. We see people sinning (making mistakes), then correcting those mistakes and often sinning again. The entire Old Testament is a two steps forward, one step backward account. Do we concentrate on the one step back or look at the two steps forward.
Perhaps, may I suggest, true morality has more to do with looking at the two steps forward and dismissing the one step backward.
I could write a book discussing my views on the teachings of Jesus recounted in the Gospels but I’ll select only one because it is one of the few where Jesus touches on human sexuality.
The woman he saves from being stoned to death story. In it, Jesus doesn’t appear to be shocked or offended by the charges against her. He does not appear to be in the least bit concerned over her alleged sin. His concern is for her well being. Yes, he does tell her to go and sin no more but we are never told if she followed his advice. But we are told by his example that we should forgive.
Peter asks how many times he should forgive. He asks, “Seven times?” Jesus replies, “70 times 7!” Why? Are you really so cold hearted and judgmental that you are going to keep count and forgive 490 times before you go ahead and stone someone to death?
It is so easy to demand justice when we think we have been wronged. When we are the wrong doer (real or perceived) we don’t seek justice. We seek mercy. Mercy, I think, is what true morality is all about.
“According to many theologians, faith is far more important than good works or human goodness.”
good works follow naturally from faith… I think that’s what it says in James.
Faith first. True faith naturally leads to good works.
As usual you miss the point Elba and resort to nasty and snide comments. That’s too bad. But it’s proof that your reaction, your judgment, is an automatic response just like I tried to get across earlier. Try to get beyond your hatred and open your mind.
The point isn’t about homosexuality, it’s about judgment, morals, ethics, etc. I picked that subject because I knew I’d get some strong responses, but apparently you missed the point entirely or you chose not to consider it. We judge peoples moral, ethics, even their honesty and truthfulness based on our own values, moral code and ethics. It’s not something we have be able to see into someone elses mind to do. Look at it this way- I don’t know if you are male or female, I get the impression you’re female. Right or wrong, doesn’t matter, I’ll go asexual. You find out your spousal unit or significant other is unfaithful. By your moral/ethical standards I would imagine this would cause some consternation, if not outright blood letting. In some cultures a female would just have to put up with that because their values differ from ours. In some cultures the man would be ostracized at best. Or being forced to wear a burka would be another example- some cultures demand that women cover themselves. We, the western world, judge that based on our ethics and moral codes to be unfair, backward, wrong. What I’m saying is we do it naturally, just as they judge us to be wrong in other ways. I’ve been in cultures where breaking a date with a female can result in the females friends and family members hunting down the offender and doing him harm. Different system than we have here. Are they right or wrong for being that way? What gives us the authority to judge them? Does that makes us right, wrong, neither, both?
The discussion can be about gay marriage, eating meat, owning animals, religion, hunting or trapping, ATV’s vs hikers…it’s not the specific question, it’s the philosophy behind ASKING the question and how and why you respond/judge/decide as you do. That’s why simply asking “Is Christianity moral” is a loaded question right from the start. It has nothing to do with politics, thankfully, but rather with he way you perceive the world based, I would think, on your upbringing and life experience. Stories of American indian warfare involving the killing of infants abound, some people hear that and instantly judge it to be morally wrong. Others consider the time and place and the different culture and values and don’t look at it that way. Slavery was at one time widely practiced, still is in some parts of the world I understand. At the time, using the values and ethics of the people involved it was morally correct FOR THEM. We don’t look at it that way today, but does that make those owning slaves entirely wrong or does it make them products of their time and culture? This isn’t a way to excuse wrong doing, but it is a way to sort of understand their thought process. It’s kind of like the woman who’s beaten by her husband for years. She finally pops one day and kills him. Yeah, she shouldn’t have killed him, but you can sort of understand WHY.
Does that make any sense to you or are you just going to consider anything coming from me is wrong no matter what?
First, a suggestion that everyone take it down one notch. Much of this has been interesting, though-provoking stuff. Don’t spoil it with nastiness…read carefully before hitting reply.
Now for my own thoughts:
One of the ways that modern morality has eclipsed traditional Christian morality (for many of us) is that we replace a complex series of judgments — “homesexuality is bad” with a far more flexible and essentially libertarian concept:
“If you’re not hurting someone else, or imposing your will or values on someone else, then whatever you’re doing is usually okay.”
This speaks to Bret’s repeated mention of NAMBLA — a creepy fringe group denounced by gays that advocates for legalizing sex with young boys.
We know NAMBLA is creepy because it involves the victimization of a person by someone far more powerful.
It has nothing to do with gayness.
NAMBLA is creepy in exactly the same way that pedophile priests are creepy and in exactly the same way that traditional arranged Christian marriages of elderly men with young girls are creepy.
Bottom line? Some traditionalists argue that without Christian judgment, morality is a perpetual slippery slope, leading deeper into moral decay.
But if we base our morality and laws on a basic principle of non-victimization and protection of the weak, we have a pretty solid foundation.
–Brian, NCPR
I think the central theme of the New Testament, and the Old Testament is eternal life, and how to achieve resurrection from the state of being dead. To live again, and forever.
I also think that knowing the person Jesus (a person who lived, died, and know lives), gives one a little better insight than knowing about Jesus.
That is just a comment on perspective.
As to how to answer the question at hand, “Is Christianity moral?”, I guess the idea is to make some comparison to some other moral standard.
In other words, Is Christianity moral compared to what?
And the answer will, of course, be “no”. Compared to some other standard of morality, Christianity will be different.
“now lives”, not “know lives”
Christian morality is based on following Christ, thus the word.
For a Christian the center of all scripture is Jesus and His revelation. So morality itself flows from Christ who we believe is both man and God. The Torah sets the stage (from a Christ centric viewpoint I do not mean to offend my Jewish brothers and sisters), but Christ is the center and Christians cannot read the Old Testament without reading it through the eyes and teachings of Christ.
What are the moral teachings of Christ? This is what we are told to follow. But here is the rub, we as Christians try to follow these teachings not because we think they are a good plan for society or because they would be good for civic government. We try to follow them because we believe Christ is the Savior and loves us and died for us; outside of that it is meaningless.
The moral teachings of Christ and Christianity are not really that unique in and of themselves. What is unique is the destruction of sin, death and the devil by Christ on the cross and the working of the Holy Spirit through His Gospel.
Sorry for the religious speak but for Christians this is real, it is not some sort of social program or some sort of good works plan that will help society but in the end is a nice myth. We are called to die for this Savior and that will never be acceptable to modern ears. For Christians it is very dangerous to want to be acceptable to modern thinking, which in the end of course we believe is going nowhere. I do not mean that in an offensive way. But modern thinking will never accept that a man died on the cross and rose from the grave and through that sacrifice allowed all people victory over death and sin. Modern thinking will never accept the core of Christian belief in my opinion.
Peace.
Brian,
“Amen” to everything you said!
A point to remember about life after death. The belief in the idea was not always there in early Judaism. It started to gain some traction of few hundred years before Jesus.
This helps explain why the early Jews/Hebrews believed punishment for sin (yours or your ancestors) was given in this life.
As to what has evolved as Christianity, it is interesting to contemplate what Christianity would be like without the teachings of Paul. Might I dare ask, “Are we Christians or are we Paulists?”
Christianity is not the only belief system that considers eternal life of the spirit. I’m in the “many paths to salvation” camp. (I can’t tell you how much that irritates my mother in law, heh, heh.) But that’s part of the reason I question the basic premise of asking if Christianity or any other religion or even non-religious belief system is or isn’t “moral”. Would a loving God or other higher power condemn any flawed individuals (sinners) to damnation? I spent way too much time trying to comprehend “God” and what He thinks or why He does what He does or doesn’t to even begin to try and think I can be the arbiter or who is and isn’t “worthy”. That’s just waaayy above my pay grade. So I come to the conclusion that in these matters maybe none of us has the “right” answer, we just have to go with our gut and try and do the best we can.
Brian: “…if we base our morality and laws on a basic principle of non-victimization and protection of the weak, we have a pretty solid foundation.”
Boy, that is sure a lot easier than trying to extrapolate how many angels dance on the head of a pin and what the seating plan is in heaven.
Brian, “creepy” might be replaced with “perverse”, “evil”, “horrible” or any of a bunch of other descriptors, don’t you think? But again, you attempt to sever any link of NAMBLA with the “good” gay groups. That’s that moral/ethical/judgment thing I was talking about. Having sex with young boys is still homosexuality, it’s just at a different level because of age. One kids 1 day from being 16 the other one is 1 day past 16. The difference of 48 hours or less makes one act legal and the other victimization and heinous felony. You see why it’s simply not as easy as good gay/bad gay? Take that to your original premise, that splitting of hairs. Morality is in the eye of the beholder really, isn’t it? What is morally correct in San Francisco or NYC might not fly in other places. What is considered normal interaction in Canton or Saranac Lake might be a major blunder of epic proportion in Okinawa or Tokyo or Istanbul. Ethics, values, morals, judgment, training, life experience. You’ve traveled enough to know that just surviving (literally) in some places depends on not making one of those blunders. In some places the moral and ethical code says that when you make that mistake it’s worthy of death or mutilation. Is that morally “right”? Is it morally right for us to judge their morals?
Sometimes I wish I’d gone to college and taken philosophy.
Bret my nasty and snide comments were simply rephrasing what I’ve heard conservative politicians and ministers say about what will happen if gays are allowed to marry.
Bret, you are a bit wordy. As a Catholic attending Catholic school I went to Mass every day of the week except Saturday – I’ve heard plenty of preaching about morality.
Have you answered my simple question yet? Here it is for the third time. Maybe, just for me, you can answer it in less than 200-300 words.
How about some specifics on how gays getting married is going to change your relationship with your wife (the original question)?
Wordy, yeah, I know. Don’t know what it’s doing in North Elba, but here it’s raining cats and dogs. You’d prefer I was surfing porn or watching Idol? Not my bag.
No, the original question was “Is Christianity Moral”. I already answered your question. “I see the idea as a threat to the sanctity and very meaning of marriage in general. I see it as opening the door to plural marriage, to obscuring the boundaries, if 2 men or women can get married why can’t I marry my sister or mother or daughter? What’s the difference? None. You’ve changed the meaning from one man and one woman and that’s the camels nose under the tent. ”
Now, you’re perception/ethics/morals/judgment may not see it that way. Fine, I have no problem with that. I can accept that your opinion is different than mine. Maybe you don’t see the change of the definition as a big deal. I do. Your values/morals are different than mine. Not right, not wrong, different. Same with your politics and probably lots of other stuff. (Now to set you off) That’s the difference between liberals and conservatives, you can’t accept the idea that other people have a right to an opinion that differs from yours.
PS- Just kidding…
Bret4207,
Your oft stated concern/objection to gays getting married is beside the point, theologically speaking.
What do I mean? Addressing only the teachings of the Catholic Church, any and all sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin. Marriage is only possible between a man and a woman because, even within a marriage between a man and a woman, any sexual activity that isn’t open to natural procreation is a mortal sin. Thus the ban on artificial means of birth control. Thus no same sex sex. No private sex self sex sex.
By the way, it is also a mortal sin to use artificial insemination. Why? Because it’s unnatural. Obtaining the seed from the man, even if he is married to the woman, can only be obtained by him committing an act the Church regards as a mortal sin.
All of this may seem harsh and in a way it is. But the Church does offer (no disrespect meant) a free avoid Hell pass in the form Confession. Confess your sin to a priest and you can be absolved from the sin. What if you can’t get to a priest? There is something called a Perfect Act of Contrition. A Perfect Act of Contrition takes place when you are truly sorry for your sin, not just because you are afraid of going to Hell but because you are sorry for what you have done.
I think that is more than enough Catholic theology for today.
Oh HAHA!
I haven’t seen any child sacrifices in Christianity (ever), but there sure is a lot going on in those abortion clinics, which liberals and atheists hold to so dearly.
It does not matter to me if Christianity is perceived as moral by the current shifting sands of what society considers moral at this moment in time. What matters is if what Christ did and said He was true or not.
“But its texts also patently embrace war, slavery, murder, the subjection of women, sexual violence, and the persecution of gays and lesbians.” This may reflect the old testament but this does not resonate in the new testament. The texts of the new testament convey that Jesus came to go beyond the old testament, to give a new commandment. But fundamentalists continue to focus on the old testament with all those aforementioned texts. Why would they, as Christians, instead focus on the new testament, the texts concerning Christ?
Isn’t it interesting though that in the old testament the sacrifice of Isaac, Abraham’s son, which did not occur, was the start of the Jewish faith and the sacrafice of Jesus was the beginning of Christianity with the new testament?
Pat:
The actual reports in the Old Testament gives us insight into the spiritual realities in the New Testament. The New Testament refers to the Old as “examples”.
In the New Testament, in the church, Paul has to correct gross immorality (I Cor 5). That was taking place in a Christian church, and Paul spoke of the remedy.
Christianity is, and has, its own moral code.
To the extent that people follow it, mock it, disregard it, change it, etc. doesn’t matter, the moral code is what it is.
In the end, a certain amount of people will have achieved through eternal life, because what they believe (payment of sin by the death of Jesus), not what they do (act morally or immorally).
The rest will be gathered and destoyed.
It sounds gruesome, and some picture the Christian God as an all-fun-loving grandfather, but that does not encompass the whole nature of the God of Christianity.
There were reasons for the acts of violence in the Old Testament. Death is not a “normal” thing, and the fallen state of man is due to sin, not due to God’s plan. The “cure” for death, and restoration to God’s plan are conveyed throughout the Old and New Testaments.
Sorry to the evolutionists in the crowd. This won’t make a lot of sense to you.
“Meanwhile, at least in the public sphere, Christian activists spend far less time on issues that many would consider more morally pressing, from climate change and tolerance to poverty and economic inequality”
I wanted to address this a little. I know that in the media and in the public square some Christians group do seem to focus on issues surrounding hot button social issues (abortion, same sex marriage etc.), however Christians groups are the largest providers of charity to the poor in the United States outside of the government. There are indeed large groups of Christian activists who focus on poverty, injustice, human trafficking, unjust war, and a variety of social issues that impact the most vulnerable members of our society.
This is done not because it is some sort of good social policy, it is done for the love of Christ and following His command to lover our neighbors and to sacrifice our own wealth and time.
If Christ was willing to sacrifice Himself for His love of people who did not love Him including myself, and if Abraham was willing to sacrifice his beloved son for the love of God, certainly Christians today can sacrifice their time and money for Christ who lives in the hearts of those most in need, as He said when you do it to the least you do it to Me.
So yes taken out of context sacrifice can look “creepy” but it is a key aspect of Christian life.
Sorry for the sermon no one wants I am really done now!
Mervel – A couple of things.
1. Abraham places obedience and faith over honesty, decency and sound moral judgment. To some extent he’s making a personal sacrifice, but as Kierkegaard points out, he’s also plotting to commit murder. This is an approach that many Christian theologians would recognize as valid — after all, Abraham is doing what he thinks God wants. But most moral Americans probably wouldn’t share the view.
2. I agree that Christianity does a lot of good works, and a lot of this is based squarely on the teachings of the Old and New Testaments. There is no doubt but that Jesus focused more of his teachings on issues of social and economic justice than on, say, sexuality.
–Brian, NCPR
Brian, now you’re getting right back to where we started- “Abraham places obedience and faith over honesty, decency and sound moral judgment.” It’s Abrahams “sound moral judgment” that obedience and faith ARE part of his sound moral judgment. In his view he cannot separate them. But we judge him to be wrong because we lack obedience and faith. Kind a conundrum, eh?
Pete, like I said, I could have used any number of other issues, maybe I should have. It’s the question behind it all that I’m talking about. Are we morally correct to judge others morals, ethics, etc? Or are we simply arrogant bigots when we attempt to apply our morals, ethics, judgment to others? Are you or PNElba on the higher moral ground if you support gay marriage or veganism or abortion or banning tobacco or are you simply pushing your morals and ethics and judgment on those who feel differently? Is there even such a thing as “the moral high ground”? Tell a Jew and a Palestinian, “Well, I think Israel and the Palestinians have brought a lot of their respective troubles on themselves.” What kind of answer do you think you’ll get? Which one has the higher moral ground? Does either one have it? Can it exist?
It’s not the specific question, it’s the asking the question in the first place that’s the issue.
Bret4207,
I think when someone dares to claim the “high moral ground,” they are in danger of a very long fall.
Everyone has their opinion and we Americans do love to express ours.
I think we have reached a stage in this country where far too much becomes a morality issue. In my view, once you get past the clear cut prohibitions of murder, rape and robbery, arguments begin to surface. There can even be disagreements over the definitions of murder, rape and robbery. Abortion is an excellent example.
Let’s face it. There was a time when most people didn’t see a problem with slavery. Some might even argue today that working for the “man” is a form of slavery today.
I really believe that we have far too much, too many things, that are categorized as either immoral or illegal. I think we do judge far too much.
When I’m tempted to judge, I try to remember the lines from an old song from the 70’s. It goes something like this: “There aren’t no good guys. There aren’t no bad guys. There is just you and me and we just happen to disagree.” We all walk in different shoes from different times and places. From a Dire Straights song: “We live in different worlds.” Or as Jesus said, “Worry about the beam in your own eye before you worry about the splinter in your neighbor’s eye.”
To me, the very idea that anyone should be daring to judge the morality of Abraham or even God is ridiculous. God did say to Job, “My thoughts are not your thoughts. My ways are not your ways.” Might we not say the same thing to each other?
By the way, Bret, I do enjoy your views and believe they are honest and sincere, even if I sometimes disagree.
We’re on the same page Pete. If I were still in Injun Lake I’d gladly buy you a cup of joe at the diner.
Brain-I think this is an interesting discussion on Abraham in particular thanks for starting it.
“Abraham places obedience and faith over honesty, decency and sound moral judgment.”
Yes he does do that; but for me this makes him more compelling, not necessarily moral or good, but more interesting and actually believable. If the story was wrapped up neatly for example, it would not help us much, if Abraham went home and told the family “we must do this because God spoke to me and said we must do it but it will all be okay because God will make it all good and his family said yes that is true let’s follow God, God is always talking to us so we know this happens” well it would be to tidy not really human.
But let’s say God really did tell one of us to sacrifice our sons? For me I am not Abraham and do not have the faith to do it, but if I did have a little more faith I would be in awe of being spoken directly too for starters by God but who would believe me and then I have tell them oh yeah I have to kill our Son? Likely I still would probably lie about it to my wife and son, I would probably obfuscate about doing the whole thing dragging it out, hoping against hope it would be called off at the last minute, yet Abraham still plods forward in obedience.
I just find this more compelling and more real; this is much like all of the flawed sinful men God chooses to use throughout the bible, David, Moses, Peter, Paul etc.
Its too bad you didn’t explore what Kiekegaard was expressing in his analogy.
You just kind of skipped to the tired old criticisms of Christians. Ok, I get it: global warming-bad, anti-gay marriage-bad, against baby killing-bad. What a wonderful ethical system you have.